Hammond & Irving, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1946

65 N.L.R.B. 679 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of HAMMOND & IRVING, INC. and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
Case No. 3-R-1075.Decided January 31, 1946
Nobel, Leary & Leary, by Mr. Perry E. Leary, of Auburn, N. Y., for
the Company.
Mr. H. I. Smith, of Buffalo, N. Y., and Mr. Claude Fairfield, of
Seneca Falls, N. Y., for the IAM.
Miss Ruth E. Bliefield, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by International Association of Machin-
ists, herein called the IAM, alleging that a question affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Ham-
mond & Irving, Inc., Auburn, New York, herein called the Company,
the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hear-
ing, upon due notice before Eugene von Wellsheim, Trial Examiner.
The hearing was held at Auburn, New York, on October 3, 1945. The
Company and the Union appeared and participated. All parties were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial
Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity
to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Hammond & Irving, Inc., a New York corporation, is engaged at
its plant at Auburn, New York, in the manufacture of steel forgings.
During the period from January 1, 1945, to June 30, 1945, the Com-
pany used raw materials valued in excess of $200,000, more than 80
percent of which was obtained from points outside the State of New
65 N. L . R. B., No. 117.
679
680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
York. During the same period, the Company manufactured finished
products valued in excess of $200,000, more than 40 percent of which
represented shipments to points outside the State.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and we so find.
II. TIIE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists is a labor organization,
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the IAM as the
exclusive bargaining representative of certain of its employees until
the IAM has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
A statement of a Field Examiner of the Board, introduced into
evidence at the hearing, indicates that the IAM represents a substan-
tial number of employees in the unit it alleges to be appropriate.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The TAM seeks a unit of all employees in the Company's machine
and saw shop, including crane operators, millwrights, maintenance
machinists, machine operators, lay-out men, and saw tenders, but
excluding all administrative, clerical, engineering, and supervisory
employees. The Company, on the other hand, contends that the unit
sought is inappropriate and that, in view of previous bargaining his-
tory, the only proper grouping is one which includes all production
and maintenance employees, excluding office and clerical and super-
visory employees.
In 1942, pursuant to the results of a consent election, the Company
entered into a collective bargaining contract with the Metal Trades
Department of the American Federation of Labor, herein called the
Metal Trades, covering a unit of all production and maintenance
employees of the Company. It seems that the contract provided that
the Metal Trades represented "individually and collectively the craft
organizations of the Company who come under the jurisdiction of the
craft organizations or Unions so enumerated, to wit : International
Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 153, International Brotherhood
of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers, Local No. 628"; the latter
organization is herein called the Blacksmiths.
'The Field Examiner reported that the IAM submitted 15 authorization ' cards; and
that there are approximately 25 employees in the unit it seeks.
HAMMOND & IRVING, INC. 681
In June 1945, after the expiration of the 1944 contract, a repre-
sentative of the IAM communicated with the Company and pre-
sented a proposed new contract in which the bargaining agent.was set
forth, as in the previous contracts, as the Metal Trades. The Com-
pany refused to accept the contract, apparently because, it had been in-
formed that the Blacksmiths was not interested in negotiating a new
agreement. At subsequent meetings the Blacksmiths indicated its
lack of interest in a new contract, and stated it had no objection to the
unit proposed herein. The IAM is not permitted, according to its
constitution, to admit the employees in the forge shop into its organ-
ization, except under unusual circumstances. Neither it, nor any other
organization, is presently attempting to organize these employees, and
the unit sought apparently consists of all employees of the Company
under the jurisdiction of the IAM.
The Company's production operations are carried on for the most
pant in two separate buildings, the forge or main shop, and the machine
and saw shop; these buildings are located in close proximity to each
other. An outdoor crane which services both buildings is located
between them. This crane is attached to the rear of the machine shop
building.
The Company's supervisory hierarchy consists of a superintendent
over all production, a foreman over both buildings on the day shift,
and a foreman in charge of the night shift. There is an occasional
temporary interchange of employees between the two buildings. Em-
ployees in both buildings are paid on an hourly basis. They also work
the same shifts, and use a common locker and shower room. There
are two time clocks and racks located at the entrance.to the forge shop
which are used by the employees of both shops. But it appears that,
the employees of the machine and saw shop use one clock and rack,
and the employees of the forge shop the other.
In the forge shop hammer work is done, which consists of heating
the steel in the heating furnaces, and hammering it into shape accord-
ing to customer specification. In the saw shop pieces that are to be
forged are cut from steel billets, and, after forging, twin forgings are
cut of varying sizes and dimensions. ' The machine shop rough ma-
chines forge pieces when requested by a customer.
It appears that the work performed and the skills required in the
machine and saw shop are distinctly different from the work per-
;Formed and the skills required in the forge shop. The contracts be-
tween the Company and the Metal Trades took cognizance of the
separate identity of the employees in the machine and saw shop. In
addition to stating that the Metal Trades represented the IAM and
the Blacksmiths, the contract provided for separate committees from
the machine and saw shop, and the forge shop. Also, the Blacksmiths
have withdrawn from the collective bargaining picture. On the basis
682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of all the facts we perceive no valid reason for denying employees in
the machine and saw shop the right , if they so desire, to be separately
represented by their own collective bargaining representative.
We find, therefore, that all employees in the machine and saw shop
of the Company's Auburn, New York, plant, including crane opera-
tors , millwrights , maintenance machinists , machine operators , lay-out-
men and saw tenders, but excluding laborers and administrative , cleri-
cal, and engineering employees, and all supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote , discharge , discipline , or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees , or effectively recommend such ac-
tion, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. _
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the , question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion herein , subject to the limitations and additions set forth iii the
Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of'National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended , it is hereby,
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Hammond & Irv-
ing, Inc., Auburn , New York, an election by secret ballot shall be
conducted as early as possible , but not later than thirty ( 30) days from
the date of this Direction , under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Third Region, acting in this matter as agent
for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III,
Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations , among the em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were
employed during the pay -roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction , including employees who did not work during said
pay-Toll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid
off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States
who present themselves in person at the polls , but excluding any who
have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired
or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented by International Association of
Machinists , for the purposes of collective bargaining.